"Male loneliness: The ticking time bomb that’s killing men"

[BoltzmannBrain17]

Something worth mentioning that I doubt is being brought up is the rising standards for male physical attractiveness being brought on by social media. Women are already instinctually inclined to choose the tallest most physically attractive mate they can and this effect is being exacerbated by social media nowadays. If you don’t have an attractive face as a male you will have an extremely hard time dating nowadays.

 

[Tony Ramirez]

Something worth mentioning that I doubt is being brought up is the rising standards for male physical attractiveness being brought on by social media. Women are already instinctually inclined to choose the tallest most physically attractive mate they can and this effect is being exacerbated by social media nowadays. If you don’t have an attractive face as a male you will have an extremely hard time dating nowadays.

That's why I don't try online dating.

 

[1ForAll]

I think it has turned into a gender war. Where the most important thing is to prove that you don't need the other gender. You can do everything alone. Needing someone is weakness. And also, who deserves what and who should do what for whom. Everything is a contest now and everyone must be and do the same, no differences. Because that's bad.

For much of the extremes, perhaps yes, but I don"t think it is necessarily a conscious thing though to do that by the rest caught in between, but it happens, as with each action and reaction there is an equal and opposite reaction. I will give an example.

Let's say the extremes want to blame the other side and cannot admit to their wrongs or desire to be responsible for their own actions. They seem one-sided in their thinking. They may want to have tons of followers on their side or blend in there to prove their point, elevate themselves and to push the other side down.

The ones in the middle, like I and some others, as I see some good, neutral and bad points coming from all extreme sides, are often pushed to choose sides, or to defend our gender, identity or orientation, or the issue they are unfairly attacking or stating in some biased way. But if we instinctively choose a side for a certain issue we may be labeled unfairly, or be seen as believing in everything they believe in.

It seems like nobody is in the middle these days and thinking for themselves but feeling they must rush to the side of one of the extremes. I often stay in the middle as it is a safer and smarter place for me to be. I will side with or call out any for any single issue if I strongly agree or disagree, regardless of gender, identity or orientation ,but for any general ideology I just do not believe in being categorized in one of those places there as I could disagree with many important issues there, if I saw they were hypocrites or slanted in one direction.

Why even have feminism, masculism or whatever? Why not equalism movements where we get rid of all double standards and assumptions that one gender should have more rights or responsibilities there? I mean advance issues of that gender, orientation, class that are pushed down, yes, but then be equal there, and do it too for those issues outside our gender and belief systems if that was seen as more fair. And accept equal responsibilities when elevated there. Do not keep wanting to go higher and higher too as then backlash will occur there.

Extreme views are my pet peeve. But, unfortunately, both sides are contributing to it, and equally. We need not tear or push others down to elevate ourselves, or to give one side to equations like many in society do, but use facts, details,sound reasoning and logic and a position that shows impartiality, so the message is more heard than the hate, other emotion and/or manipulative lies, because when we repress and critique those groups against us, just to elevate, while not wanting the other side to advance too in ways, those others will push back sometimes even harder. It will become cyclic, a war like you said. Each side will want to be seen as right or push away or down the other,leading to division, separation, more harms, or the breakdown of so many things.

 

[Jordy]

There was an article online not too long ago from some US source that that basically said this based on some survey.

--More women now getting more degrees than men means less reliance on them as a financial provider.

--This means they can be even more selective in who they choose, and not date down to accepting what they feel they deserve.

--Women can make up for differences in loneliness from their friendships.

--Or choose to have relationships with women if they see more attraction there.

--Women also likely think based on the above there is too much risk these days with relationships with men, and having to put forth too much effort there which is harder to do if a career unless the guy was more nurturing or providing other needs she had.

-The conclusion from the article was that more men may need to adapt to combat their loneliness and depression issues. They may need to either change, put their efforts elsewhere and/or find happiness elsewhere, if women are less available.

So what does that mean? A society where more roles are reversed? One where men and women are more selfish or living apart? One where we have the two extreme groups and hardly no middle? Or something else? I just know regardless if good or bad this culture or society is changing.

I read about the y chromosome being on its way out, but i didn't expect it to happen like this.

 

[Shevek]

I think it has turned into a gender war. Where the most important thing is to prove that you don't need the other gender. You can do everything alone. Needing someone is weakness. And also, who deserves what and who should do what for whom. Everything is a contest now and everyone must be and do the same, no differences. Because that's bad.

"The battle of the sexes can never be won. There's too much fraternizing with the enemy."
When I was young, every example of human behaviour would be prone to starting a debate over how much to blame Nature vs Nurture for it. Then, the logic on the Nature side suddenly acquired a firm foundation with Sociobiology. That's when the debates stopped, sometimes by physical disruption of conferences, and everything has been attributed to cultural memes ever since, with rare exceptions as special favours for a few.
I think that Ma Nature is smart enough to have two people equipped with more skills than one person. We are not supposed to be homogeneous equals, we are supposed to be symbiotic specialists, finding parity in a win-win relationship. Our previous deal fell apart with the industrial revolution, but women have never been as powerless as they pretend, just more circumspect in its use.

 

[Hypnalis]

for life in general declining population is good we use or rather eat up any other life here, maybe we should let it happen and as a backup we can have spermbanks father unknown when its coming to a critical point , its good for other reasons too because we dont need bloodlines anymore "my genes should win" that belongs to the animal world , the planet would recover from our misuse

A gradual reduction would be ok, but it's happening much too fast.

It's not obvious in population figures because people are living longer, which masks the reduction in births.
But things will get difficult when there are too few young people to take care of all the old people.

I'm not sure about the stats for China quoted in the video (perhaps they (or I mixed working age population with total), but wikipedia says Japan's population (will) fall by one-third from 128 million in 2010 to 87 million by 2060.
Nothing suggests the trend won't still be downward in 2060.

That's a very big change for an entire country, and Japan isn't exceptional - it's just first to experience it directly.

It can't be reversed easily: there's no reasonable way to frame a law that would force people to have children.

There's quite a lot of information on wikipedia. This is one place to start:

Total fertility rate - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

This provides something to compare countries. The video suggests it's not easy to get the full picture from data like this, but it's somewhere to start.

List of countries by past fertility rate - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Bert Lundblad]

surely there ll be consequenses with a decreasing population because everything with humans is about growth especially about economy, but as we know evolution everything cant grow at the same time, or live, life has always depended on death

 

[Au Naturel]

Humans don't actually have Alpha/Beta in the way animals do.

I would not bet on that at all.

Just in case you haven't noticed it, humans are animals. I've never seen a group of humans that did not have a pecking order, having been the omega boy for the first 20 years of life. However, the explanation of "beta" male I saw presented probably is just someone's stereotype. Or maybe emotional projection.

 

[Forest Cat]

A gradual reduction would be ok, but it's happening much too fast.

It's not obvious in population figures because people are living longer, which masks the reduction in births.
But things will get difficult when there are too few young people to take care of all the old people.

I'm not sure about the stats for China quoted in the video (perhaps they (or I mixed working age population with total), but wikipedia says Japan's population (will) fall by one-third from 128 million in 2010 to 87 million by 2060.
Nothing suggests the trend won't still be downward in 2060.

That's a very big change for an entire country, and Japan isn't exceptional - it's just first to experience it directly.

It can't be reversed easily: there's no reasonable way to frame a law that would force people to have children.

There's quite a lot of information on wikipedia. This is one place to start:

Total fertility rate - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

This provides something to compare countries. The video suggests it's not easy to get the full picture from data like this, but it's somewhere to start.

List of countries by past fertility rate - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

I think we humans overestimate ourselves, we're trying to control this planet and what lives here. We have never been able to do that before. This planet has a tendency to regulate everything on its own. If there are too many people it will fix that problem without our input.

 

[Kayla55]

I would not bet on that at all.

Just in case you haven't noticed it, humans are animals. I've never seen a group of humans that did not have a pecking order, having been the omega boy for the first 20 years of life. However, the explanation of "beta" male I saw presented probably is just someone's stereotype. Or maybe emotional projection.

Animals with intellect....who often mimic natural or animal occurrences in nature.

Changing beta and rather say that delta man doesn't need to put a women down or exploit a weakness to feel better about himself!!!. I am exploring concept of whether a delta male exists under being a moth with white spot that evolved according with Darwins theory. And if so whether produces quality or quantity moths and if pen is really mightier than the sword.

 

[Kayla55]

Do females represent the idea of natural selection?
Would a non-delta male have a really really hard time understanding no, not cause rejection, I just fail to understand you and your logic, or rather primos desires.

 

[Kayla55]

Natural selection {by female organisim}
✓©®%✓✓✓✓[✓✓✓™

Male is categorised as:

Alpha
Beta
Gama
Delta
Epsilon
Omega

There may be variants, as nothing can always be a constant, so then freeze unfertilized eggs until further notice!!

Dissect these variants for understanding
zeta eta, theta, , nu1, xi, omicron, pi1,
etc.

 

[Mr. Stevens]

Here's an interesting article disputing the idea of Alphas: Is the Alpha Wolf Idea a Myth? (Scientific American).

It says the research originating the Alpha idea was done on captive wolves who were not family, and this is not how real packs function.

 

[Hypnalis]

Here's the place to start for Chimpanzees:

The surprising science of alpha males | Frans de Waal

Chimps aren't people of course (7 to 10 million years of evolutionary divergence), and this doesn't support the existence of Human Alphas (in the sense "Alpha" can be applied to some animals).
It's thought-provoking though.

I don't know much about Chimps or Wolves, but the Wolf and Chimp information "feels" consistent given the large genetic differences.

 

[330]

Artificial intelligence will be what they put forth as a solution to this . It has already started . Will be interesting.

I am sure I will see it during the end of my life time . Humans won’t need each other anymore for relationships. They can just go buy a licensed clone robot based of the persona and appearance of a celebrity.while the celebrity and corporations make more money . The last shred of human connection will be monetized .

In my opinion

 

[Forest Cat]

Here's the place to start for Chimpanzees:

The surprising science of alpha males | Frans de Waal

Chimps aren't people of course (7 to 10 million years of evolutionary divergence), and this doesn't support the existence of Human Alphas (in the sense "Alpha" can be applied to some animals).
It's thought-provoking though.

I don't know much about Chimps or Wolves, but the Wolf and Chimp information "feels" consistent given the large genetic differences.

I went to a college that focused on sports and physical exercise and in those places you can see that alpha males are a real thing I think. Some were leaders and winners and some weren't. But the strongest and most cocky guys were the ones the others followed. We would do things in teams, like run up a mountain. A very hard thing to do. And there was always a guy taking charge and pushing the others, someone who stood out and took charge, refused to quit, helped those who lagged behind and so on. That just happened naturally.

 

[Rodafina]

Artificial intelligence will be what they put forth as a solution to this . It has already started . Will be interesting.

I am sure I will see it during the end of my life time . Humans won’t need each other anymore for relationships. They can just go buy a licensed clone robot based of the persona and appearance of a celebrity.while the celebrity and corporations make more money . The last shred of human connection will be monetized .

In my opinion

 

[Hypnalis]

@Forest Cat

Were the high-status males the strongest, or the most capable and competent?
Did the other males follow them, or respect them?

The message of Frans de Waals TED talk is that the successful leaders among chimps, which do have Alpha males, are competent, supportive, and politically effective.

 

[Forest Cat]

@Forest Cat

Were the high-status males the strongest, or the most capable and competent?
Did the other males follow them, or respect them?

The message of Frans de Waals TED talk is that the successful leaders among chimps, which do have Alpha males, are competent, supportive, and politically effective.

The strongest, most capable and competent, the ones who could handle the pressure and also help those who couldn't handle the pressure. Supporting and leading a group of people. I addded some text to my other post that decribes it more.

 

[Mr. Stevens]

The strongest, most capable and competent, the ones who could handle the pressure and also help those who couldn't handle the pressure. Supporting and leading a group of people. I addded some text to my other post that decribes it more.

Isn't this, and the Frans de Waal video, redefining what "alpha male" means? Or have people defined it this way for a long time (like several decades)?